HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL AGENDA 11221988 Meeting Sheet
100008
I VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII III IIII
Boy: 15
Folder:
Document: PL AGENDA 11231988
1 which was going in next to him. He indicated staff had reassured him
2 drainage would be provided in a manner which would cause no problems for
3 this property. The resident added that he and Mr. Hance had come to a
4 satisfactory understanding on all issues which had previously caused
5 him some concern.
6 Councilmember Marks indicated that under his understanding of what
7 constituted a hardship for which a variance could be granted, this
8 request came the closest to meeting the definition of a hardship than
9 he had perceived in many variance applications which the Council had
10 previously granted.
11 Council Action
12 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to grant the variance requested
13 by Edward Hance which would allow the construction of the proposed
14 garage at 2813 Silver Lane within a minimum of 13 feet from the front
15 property line as shown in the architect's October 11 , 1988 site and
16 elevation drawings presented at both the Planning Commission's November
17 15, 1988 hearing and the Council's November 22 , 1988 consideration of
18 the variance. In granting the 17 foot variance to the City Ordinance
19 requirement for 30 foot front yard setbacks, the Council finds, as did
20 the Planning Commission, that the applicant had satisfactorily addressed
21 the three statutory requirements for granting a variance and a hardship
22 had been created for the applicant by the strict regulations of the Rice
23 Creek Watershed District regarding setbacks from Silver Lake.
24 Motion carried unanimously-
25
nanimously-25 Council Approves Amending P.U.D. for Kenzingion Apartments of St.
26 Anthony
27 Commission Recommendation
28 In addition to copies of the Commission minutes pertaining to the above,
29 the Council agenda packet had included the same documentation as had
30 been provided Commission members for the November 15th hearing.
31 Commissioner Werenicz reported the Commissioners had no problem with
32 recommending the Council waive the preliminary plat and approve the
33 final plat for the 9. 34 acre parcel to include the addition of the
34 triangular parcel of the parking lot west of the Town and Country Store,
35 which will be acquired by the City to make the site changes perceived
36 necessary by the developers. However, he said, as reported extensively
37 in the minutes, several changes in the plans which had been approved in
38 August, resulted in lengthy discussions with staff and the developer's
39 representative.
40 The Commission representative indicated the Commissioners had approved
41 resiting the buildings away from the perimeter of the property;
42 provision of a "villa-type entrance concept for the two largest
43 buildings; and the pond and pool in the center court area. The major
6
.. , 0
1 Mr. Hamer who would make sure all the electrical , plumbing, etc. were
2 up to code.
3 Council Action
4 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Ranallo to grant an amendment to the
5 conditional use permit originally issued on February 28 , 1984 to Video
6 Update, 2510 Kenzie Terrace N.E. , to include the expansion of the video
7 store's retail space into the adjoining space recently vacated by Popco
8 Cleaners. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the Council
9 imposes the following conditions on the amendment:
10 1 . There would be no viewing of tapes in the store, except for bona fide
11 demonstrations of tapes and no viewing would be visible from outside
12 the store.
13 2 . The proprietors must comply with all state laws relating to obscenity
14 and to any ordinance of the City of St. Anthony thereafter relating
15 to obscenity.
16 3 . Conviction of the owner or any of the employees of the owner for
17 violation of obscenity laws in the operation of the store would be
18 grounds for revocation of this permit by the City Council .
19 4 . There shall be no flashing lights in the front window of the store.
20 5. Approval of the amendment is contingent upon an inspection of the
21 premises by the Building Inspector to ascertain that they meet all
22 City ordinances and codes.
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24 Setback Variance for Hance Garage Granted With No Objections From
25 Neighbor
26 Commissioner Werenicz indicated that after hearing very extensive
27 testimony from the applicant, Edward J. Hance, including his response
28 to drainage concerns from the next door neighbor, the Planning
29 Commission had concluded hardships had been demonstrated which justified
30 the City's granting the requested variance for the proposed garage at
31 2813 Silver Lane. The Commissioner explained that the Commissioners had
32 agreed that the configuration of the lot as well as stringent lake
33 setback requirements imposed by the Rice Creek Watershed District
34 appeared to fulfill the three requirements for granting such a variance.
35 He said the Planning Commission also perceived the 13-1/2 foot setback
36 Mr. Hance was proposing was an improvement over the 10 foot setback from
37 the property line which had been provided by the garage which had
38 previously stood on that property.
39 Andrew Szurek, 2809 Silver Lane, whose home is located just east of the
40 Hance property, told the Councilmembers his appearance at the Planning
41 Commission hearing had only been to get more information on the project
5
1 concerns had been about adding another driveway on Kenzie terrace and
2 the provision of less brick on two of the buildings than had been
3 promised in the Redevelopment Agreement, he indicated.
4 Commissioner Werenicz told the Council the Commissioners had been
5 unanimous in their opposition to another curb cut off Kenzie Terrace,
6 perceiving it would defeat the purpose of the traffic signal the City
7 had just installed to serve the project's main entrance as well as the
8 Kenzington across the street. He said the developers had indicated
9 they would have a traffic study done to see if the Commission concerns
10 were warranted and had even suggested they might be able to turn
11 Building A around to maintain the necessary flow of traffic within the
12 project.
13 The other "bone of contention" had been the Commissioner's perception
14 that the developers were not providing as much brick as promised
15 originally, and which Commissioner Werenicz conceded might have been a
16 tradeoff for a better building design, but still didn't seem to meet
17 the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement.
18 Developers Defense of Changes
19 Paul Brewer, Gene Nelson, and Greg Bronk of Lang/Nelson Associates and
20 a representative of Leonard Lampert Architects were present to answer
21 questions from the Council.
22 Nr. Brewer confirmed the changes in the site -plans which would:
23 *move the 50 unit, 3 story senior Building A away from the street and
24 farther from the "huge mass of the Kenzington" across Kenzie Terrace;
25 *at the same time, time that building and the other 75 unit senior
26 Building B and the 76 unit general occupancy Building C closer
27 together;
28 *provide drainage for the site into a pond adjacent to the pool in the
29 center which would provide a focal point for the buildings;
30 *relocate the parking lot,.exits farther away from the main entrance
31 where there would be less incline and more room for stacking.
32 Nr. Brewer indicated the developers had perceived a real marketing
33 advantage to providing the villa, clustered entrance type design for
34 Buildings B and C because those are the types of amenities prospective
35 renters seem to be looking for in multi-family housing. He pointed
36 out, however, that whenever more angles and roofing are added to a
37 building, it has to cost more money than it would to just construct a
38 three story building which looks more like a dormitory. That cost
39 factor, and the architectural design which was decided on, called for
40 brick exteriors on the first two floor exteriors of Buildings B and C,
41 wood siding on the highest center portion.
7
1 The President of the LaNel Financial Group indicated the developers were
2 proposing another entry into the site which would provide ingress and
3 egress and to only Building C through the existing curb cut which had
4 previously serviced the upholstery shop. He said he perceived the
5 existing median in front of this building would force drivers leaving
6 the site to go north to either access Highway 88 or St. Anthony
7 Boulevard. Mr. Brewer said he would anticipate Building C's residents
8 to develop traffic patterns which would bring them up Stinson rather
9 than trying to make a U turn in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken to reach
10 the building from the south. The developer indicated it would not be
it advisable from a marketing standpoint to direct traffic around the
12 senior building which would have to be done if the second driveway
13 isn't allowed. He also pointed out that under such a plan those
14 seniors would be cut off from the amenities of the rest of the site and
15 there would be less green space provided in an area where green space
16 is already scarce.
17 Councilmember Ranallo reiterated that the City had promised the
18 Minneapolis neighbors that access to the project would not be provided
19 from Lowry Avenue. Mr. Childs added that traffic would have to be
20 routed over private property for an access to the east to be provided.
21 When Councilmember Ranallo wondered whether, since the City would be
22 eliminating a number of Kenzie Terrace curb cuts for this project, a cut
23 in the median itself couldn't be made to access Building C. Mr. Brewer
24 indicted he thought that might work because it was very likely only the
25 residents of that building would be using that driveway because the
26 project's prospective rental activities would be carried on in Building
27 B.
28 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he had expected the developers would
29 have already done the traffic flow studies which they had promised the
30 Commissioners they would do to justify the additional curb cut. Mr.
31 Brewer told him that, given the constraints on time to get the project
32 going which wouldn't allow them to redesign the whole site, the
33 developers had instead worked on trying to solve the problem internally
34 without architectural .changes. They were unable to do this however, and
35 were now hoping the Council would say they liked the new site plan and
36 then would be willing to let Lang/Nelson to work with staff on a
37 satisfactory method of directing traffic in and out of the site based
38 on the study which had recently been done for the City for the same area
39 by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. The City Manager indicated the
40 results of their efforts could still be made at the Council's December
41 13th meeting.
42 Councilmember Makowske Adamant About Having All Brick Buildings
43 The Councilmember said she really appreciated the new villa-type concept
44 in the building design as well as the ponding and moving the project
45 away from Kenzie Terrace but perceived not having brick on the third
46 floor exteriors of Buildings B and C would be "really downgrading the
47 project" .
8
1 Mr. Brewer told her not providing as much brick had been a matter of
2 economics once the developers got into changing roof lines and adding
3 separate entrances for the ends of the buildings. However, he added
4 that he was certain that once she saw the buildings up she would change
5 her mind because putting the wood on the top floor of those two large
6 buildings tended to cut the scale down and added more texture and
7 interest to the buildings which would now relate better to the
8 adjoining residential areas. The developer said a need was perceived
9 for a visual transition between the large brick building across Kenzie
10 Terrace, the three story brick Building A and then a reduction of the
11 "mass" effect with the two story villa-type units with clustered
12 entrances.
13 Between 25-30 residents had begun to gather in the Chambers for the
14 recycling forum which followed and the illustrated drawings of the
15 project were shown to them. One person expressed the concern that it
16 might be masonite which the developers were planning to use in the
17 areas which were bricked'. Mr. Brewer assured her the wood portions
18 of the buildings would all be in stained cedar wood and would present
19 a project in which the whole City -could take pride.
20 Council Actions
21 Motion by -Marks, seconded by Enrooth to waive the preliminary plat and
22 approve the final plat which would combine all legal descriptions for
23 property contained in Phase 3 of the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment
24 Project into a single parcel described as Lot 1 , Block 1, St. Anthony
25 LaNel Addition. Subject property is generally described as the St.
26 Antony Village Shopping Center property and several small adjacent
27 property parcels in the general vicinity of the 2600 block of Kenzie
28 Terrace. Approval is contingent upon the City Attorney reviewing the
29 replacement of a portion of the sewer easement running through the
30 center of said property which is necessary for siting one of the
31 proposed buildings.
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to amend the Detail Plan and
34 Development Concept Plan for Phase 3 of the Kenzie Terrace
35 Redevelopment Plan (dated November 4, 1988) from the one approved in
36 August, 1988, to allow a second curb cut for a driveway on Kenzie
37 Terrace with a corresponding, cut in the median and/or a new entrance
38 into Building C's underground garage on the other side of the building
39 subject to an update of the traffic study done a year ago to indicate
40 what effect a median cut might have on the traffic low in that area.
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42 Councilmember Makowske Ouestions WoodjBrick Mix Proposed by Developers
9
. 1
1 The Councilmember persisted in her argument that having an all brick
2 building gave a "much finer and more substantial , permanent appearance,
3 besides being much easier to keep up. " when she said she perceived all
4 the developers who had been approached to construct the project
5 understood perfectly well at the start that the City wanted all brick
6 buildings, she was reminded that the buildings which had originally been
7 approved for the project had not been all brick. Gene Nelson,
8 President of Lang/Nelson Companies, reiterated that the developers had
9 already undertaken improvements in the project which were twice as
10 expensive as those for the project the City had originally planned.
11 He said the buildings had been downsized to give them a more
12 interesting appearance and any further expenses would not be
13 economically feasible. He reiterated that he "didn't want these
14 buildings to look like the six or seven story Kenzington, but rather to
15 fit better into the residential environment around the project with
16 their own character which would increase their rentability. " It was his
17 opinion that the amount of wood they proposed on the two larger
18 buildings with the roof drops and separated entrances would add to
19 rather than detract from the character of the buildings and would
20 achieve more of the look the Council wanted than two more three story
21 brick buildings with roof tops straight across. He disagreed with
22 Councilmember Makowske's assumption that upkeep would be related to the
23 exterior materials, but said that it rather would be related to the
24 style and the physical structure of the property and the people who are
25 operating it. He pointed out that the majority of the project
26 exterior would still be brick and reiterated that he thought the wood
27 sections would add "stature, texture, and character" to the whole
28 project.
29 The Councilmember agreed that she "loved the villa look" , but found it
30 difficult to give up the brick. Councilmember Ranallo told her he
31 wanted the brick also but preferred having this project to a "box style"
32 which the City would get with all brick.
33 Mr. Childs reported that the change in the Redevelopment Agreement to
34 accept less brick would have to be handled by the Housing and
35 Redevelopment Authority.
36 Council Action
37 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to amend the Development Concept
38 Plan and Detail Plan under the P.U.D. section of the City Zoning
39 Ordinance as proposed by Lang/Nelson Associates dated November 4 , 1988
40 for Phase 3 of the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project.
41 Voting on the motion:
42 Aye: Enrooth, Sundland, Marks, Ranallo.
43 Nay: Makowske.
44 Motion carried.
10